How much money was awarded in case 4598421?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $405.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat: $30.48 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4598421?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4598421?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9505340-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4598421?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $405.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat: $30.48 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4598421?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4598421?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9505340-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14 Argyle Street, Kew, Invercargill 9812 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4598421 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4598421?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4598421 — net $3,073.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Toilet seat	$30.48	Toilet seat
Rubbish removal	$405.00	Rubbish removal
Insurance excess x3	$2,100.00	Insurance excess x3
Oven repairs	$517.50	Oven repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,073.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,073.42

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

Rachee Matehe and Te Arai Elton Hakopa must pay Inspire Property Management Limited - As Agent For The Moa Trust $3,073.42 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The tenants failed to attend the hearing.

The landlord had previously applied for rent arrears and termination. This was dealt with on 31 January 2023.

The application before me is for, compensation for clean-up and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The previous order has been enforced.

Confirmation of the tenants’ emails has been proven as messages supplied confirm this.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. There was a significant mess left behind.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy:

There was a significant amount of damaged caused during the tenancy. Insurance has covered a significant amount. However, I am told the damage was an excess of $45,000.00. This included meth contamination and also damage to doors, toilet seat, and oven. Further the laundry appears to have been deliberately flooded. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Because Inspire Property Management Limited - As Agent For The Moa Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4598421 — net $3,073.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Toilet seat	$30.48	Toilet seat
Rubbish removal	$405.00	Rubbish removal
Insurance excess x3	$2,100.00	Insurance excess x3
Oven repairs	$517.50	Oven repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,073.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,073.42

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Rachee Matehe and Te Arai Elton Hakopa must pay Inspire Property Management Limited - As Agent For The Moa Trust $3,073.42 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The tenants failed to attend the hearing.
The landlord had previously applied for rent arrears and termination. This was dealt with on 31 January 2023.
The application before me is for, compensation for clean-up and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The previous order has been enforced.
Confirmation of the tenants’ emails has been proven as messages supplied confirm this.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. There was a significant mess left behind.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
There was a significant amount of damaged caused during the tenancy. Insurance has covered a significant amount. However, I am told the damage was an excess of $45,000.00. This included meth contamination and also damage to doors, toilet seat, and oven. Further the laundry appears to have been deliberately flooded. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because Inspire Property Management Limited - As Agent For The Moa Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4598421 — Property damage at 14 Argyle Street, Kew, Invercargill 9812

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4598421 — Property damage at 14 Argyle Street, Kew, Invercargill 9812

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions